jump to navigation

Carl Sagan Remix September 28, 2009

Posted by Michael in Music, Science.
trackback

Give this a try — it is oddly affecting.  (Stephen Hawking also appears.)

If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.

How many people think like that?

It is more religion than science.

I always liked Carl Sagan.  He was naturally appealing to every kid who, like me, was a sci-fi junkie.  His enthusiasm for big scientific subjects was infectious, and his ability to make complex topics accessible was remarkable.

I still remember watching a show where he pointed out that the DNA of people and of trees are almost the same.  The variation of tree DNA that make trees different from us is negligible.

His point being — all living things are literally related.

UPDATED:

I’m going to swipe a quote from Dave in the comments — the opening verses of Psalm 19:

The heavens declare the glory of God,
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they display knowledge.
There is no speech or language
where their voice is not heard.
Their voice goes out into all the earth,
their words to the end of the world.

Christian theologians refer to this as the Doctrine of Natural Revelation, and Psalm 19 is the proof text.

About these ads

Comments»

1. TGSG - September 28, 2009

I for one expect “billions and billions” of comments on this poat.

2. daveintexas - September 28, 2009

>> The variation of tree DNA that make trees different from us is negligible.

So that’s why I get wood?

Good to know.

3. Michael - September 28, 2009

>>>So that’s why I get wood?

Sagan would say yes. Meaning, trees are incredibly like us. They eat, they breathe, they grow and die, they have sex and reproduce.

4. d3ft punk - September 28, 2009

Getting a twitchy LGF kind of feeling right now. Makes me want to shut my ears and go ‘lalalalalalalalalala’ until it goes away. Or, until somebody does something racist, or boils a frog. NTTAWWT.

Love the song, though.

5. Michael - September 28, 2009

>>>Getting a twitchy LGF kind of feeling right now.

That’s it, Mac. I’m fed up with your reactionary bullshit.

YOU’RE BANNED!!!

*Michael looks around for banhammer, which got misplaced when WP was booted*

6. BrewFan - September 28, 2009

Carl Sagan was a pot-smoking, anti-theist hippy who wanted to save Martian microbes from the ravages of human beings.

He was smart, though.

7. daveintexas - September 28, 2009

>> Carl Sagan was a pot-smoking, anti-theist hippy

He was a Luthern?

I did not know that.

8. nicedeb - September 28, 2009

I saw that video somewhere else today, and passed over it. But after seeing it here, I thought, well, it must have some merit.

I was wrong.

Don’t ban me bro!

9. BrewFan - September 28, 2009

He was a Luthern?

He claimed later in life, after making a career out of bashing believers, that he was ‘agnostic’. Oh wait…

10. Michael - September 28, 2009

OK, Dave, OK. You asked for it.

You too, Deb.

You are both right-wing anti-science religious nutjobs, and I have had my fill of you.

YOU ARE BANNED!!!

*frickin’ banhammer must be around here somewhere*

11. xbradtc - September 28, 2009

Don’t toss me in that briarpatch, Bro’ Michael!!

12. Michael - September 28, 2009

You’re on probation, Brad. I’m cutting you some slack because you are Army.

13. xbradtc - September 28, 2009

**flips off Dave and Deb**

Hah! Take that, suckers!

14. TattooedIntellectual - September 28, 2009

Carl who?

15. d3ft punk - September 28, 2009

I am currently talking to somebody who thinks OJ was innocent.

No, really.

No…really.

Good thing I’m banned, or I’d have to explain this.

16. Michael - September 28, 2009

The great thing about Carl Sagan is that he had a gift for pointing out the relatedness of everything, whether it was species or galaxies. He may have been a pot-smoking atheist, but he was really drawing attention to the glory of God.

17. Michael - September 28, 2009

Good thing I’m banned, or I’d have to explain this.

That’s right, you are history dude. So shut the fuck up until I find my banhammer.

*Michael looks under couch, heads for garage*

18. MCPO Airdale - September 28, 2009

MIchael – Unfortunately, I have to agree with you that Sagan drawing attention to the glory of God. It was shows like Sagan’s that brought me to the belief that creation wasn’t random.

19. Enas Yorl - September 28, 2009

Cosmos was teh bomb when I was a kid. We were glued to the set every night it came on.

But, if’n you want interconnectedness and relatedness nobody tops James Burke’s Connections.

20. daveintexas - September 28, 2009

The heavens declare the glory of God,
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they display knowledge.
There is no speech or language
where their voice is not heard.
Their voice goes out into all the earth,
their words to the end of the world.

21. BrewFan - September 28, 2009

It was shows like Sagan’s that brought me to the belief that creation wasn’t random.

I’m glad to hear that because his intent was just the opposite.

22. BrewFan - September 28, 2009

“The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be” – Carl Sagan, 1981 Humanist of the Year

23. daveintexas - September 28, 2009

kinda my point there with the 19th Brew.

The skies do all the talkin that matters.

24. BrewFan - September 28, 2009

ok, I’m done. Nice post, Michael. I’m sure if Carl were alive today the ELCA would be happy to ordain him.

*BrewFan runs. Runs like the wind!

25. BrewFan - September 28, 2009

I read you loud and clear my Texas brother.

26. Michael - September 28, 2009

Dave:

I thought of that Psalm when I posted the video, and toyed with the idea of quoting it. But I didn’t want the post to sound preachy.

Maybe I should have.

27. d3ft punk - September 28, 2009

Michael, I am sick of your Zionist right–wing agenda of Luthernist dogma keeping the man down with its anti-science Lutheran Lutheranism. Don’t let the ban hit you on the butt as you get banned out the door.

Lutheran.

And anybody making fun of Mr. Dr. Sagan going WHOOT will also be banned!

28. Michael - September 28, 2009

In the video, Sagan says:

The sky calls to us . . .

A still more glorious dawn awaits . . .

The cosmos is full beyond measure of elegant truths.

I believe our future depends powerfully on how well we understand this cosmos, in which we float like a mote of dust in the morning sky.

The brain has its own language, contesting the structural consistency of the world.

You won’t find a Christian theologian anywhere who disagrees with any of that.

Really, just the point that Dave was making.

29. Michael - September 28, 2009

Michael, I am sick of your Zionist right–wing agenda of Luthernist dogma keeping the man down with its anti-science Lutheran Lutheranism.

Mac, when I find my banhammer, you are going to get whopped hard for talking smack to me. Punk.

* banhammer not in garage — Michael heads for attic*

30. Jones in CO - September 28, 2009

every atom in our bodies came from the stars
try wrapping your head around that

31. daveintexas - September 28, 2009

Perhaps Sagan just found beauty and mystery in the cosmos. It certainly has that.

32. Michael - September 29, 2009

>>>Perhaps Sagan just found beauty and mystery in the cosmos.

Yeah, but apparently he missed the point.

33. daveintexas - September 29, 2009

Don’t matter. The point gets made anyhow.

34. Michael - September 29, 2009

Let’s not get started on the Doctrine of Election.

I really just don’t have the energy to cock-slap a Calvinist like Brewfan on this subject again.

35. lauraw - September 29, 2009

Ffffft.

Buncha incense-burning Godbags in here.
.
.
.
.
.

*sacrifices a live chicken to the Good Garden Faeries*

36. kevlarchick - September 29, 2009

We are stardust, we are golden.

Just to add fuel to the fire, today is the Catholic feast of the Archangels, and they can kick all y’alls ass.

37. geoff - September 29, 2009

every atom in our bodies came from the stars
try wrapping your head around that

The thing that amazes me is that everything you see is the result of a bunch of photons traveling 93 million miles from the sun, and bouncing off an object into your eyeball. At night it’s even more amazing, since it has to bounce off the moon first.

38. Dave in Texas - September 29, 2009

you gonna eat dat chicken?

39. Michael - September 29, 2009

A conversation between Carl Sagan and the Cosmos:

Cosmos: Carl, you are a meaningless speck of matter and energy.

Sagan: AH KNOW MAH RIGHTS!!!

40. Michael - September 29, 2009

The thing that amazes me is that everything you see is the result of a bunch of photons traveling 93 million miles from the sun

It’s like you don’t actually perceive real matter, just reflected energy.

Maybe you are not even real, Geoff. Maybe you are just an idea in my head, a series of electro-chemical reactions.

*Twilight Zone music*

41. Dave in Texas - September 29, 2009

The matrix is kinda hard to explain.

I’m gonna need a white board.

42. Michael - September 29, 2009

Dave, you only exist in my head.

So shut the fuck up with your lame jokes.

43. Dave in Texas - September 29, 2009

I actually think you are more interesting than Carl Sagan.

44. lauraw - September 29, 2009

I’m gonna need a white board.

Thanks, Dave. I hear it’s good to irrigate my sinuses with warm coffee every now and then.

45. Michael - September 29, 2009

I actually think you are more interesting than Carl Sagan.

That’s because I think you think I am more interesting than Carl Sagan.

46. compos - September 29, 2009

I’m gonna need a white board.

You could’ve just as easily requested a blackboard. Racist.

As for the bannhammer, I mis-stepped coming down a ladder and accidentally “fell” on it, iykwimaityd. I’m going to need help with the extraction. Volunteers?

47. geoff - September 29, 2009

Sagan: AH KNOW MAH RIGHTS!!!

God invents the universe:

“Here, hold my beer. I’m gonna try sumpin’”

48. geoff - September 29, 2009

I’m going to need help with the extraction. Volunteers?

Just feed him some Taco Bell and start running.

49. kevlarchick - September 29, 2009

I often pray to the God of Parking Spaces on my way to the office. Seems to pay off.

50. compos - September 29, 2009

“Here, hold my beer. I’m gonna try sumpin’”

God gets hammered and invents the liberal:

“Hey ya’ll … Watch this!”

51. Dave in Texas - September 29, 2009

>> I often pray to the God of Parking Spaces on my way to the office. Seems to pay off.

El-Parral-el?

52. Barb the Evil Genius - September 29, 2009

I’m LCMS (runs away).

53. skinbad - September 29, 2009

Mormon Godbag alert:

“yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator.”

Alma 30:44

54. reason - September 29, 2009

I have a crush / man-crush on each and every last one of you right now.

Seriously. Do you know how long I assumed that I was the only kid on the face of the planet that sat around with my parents watching Cosmos and Connections re-runs on PBS?

And this. THIS.
“The great thing about Carl Sagan is that he had a gift for pointing out the relatedness of everything, whether it was species or galaxies. He may have been a pot-smoking atheist, but he was really drawing attention to the glory of God.”

It is like you are saying what I am thinking before I am even typing it! I loved Carl Sagan so much, I prayed for him so hard after he died…

This made my morning. AWESOME.

55. reason - September 29, 2009

“El-Parral-el?”

Yesuanleft.

56. reason - September 29, 2009

And, if we REALLY want to play this game…I’ll raise you something with actual language content warning.

(srsly)

57. Cathy - September 29, 2009

*watches Sagan remix vid again*

*reads thread*

*watches vid @#56*

*sniggers*

The eyes of all look upon you, O Lord, and you give them their meat in due season… you open your hands and satisfy the desire of every living thing! *

*Looks through recipes for chicken for tonight’s supper*

I lift up my eyes to the hills — where does my help come from? My help comes from the Lord, the Maker of heaven and earth.

Love you morons!

58. lauraw - September 29, 2009

We love you too.

And what I’m sending you is going to smell so much worse than what you sent me, kind lady!

I’m wearing it right now. Lovely. Thank you!

59. Cathy - September 29, 2009

Thank Michael. He’s the giver.
He WISELY bought me some too.

60. Cathy - September 29, 2009

BTW — been reading my Water Gardens book.

Just hope we are ‘worthy’ of your lovelies.

Thanks Sweetie!

61. reason - September 29, 2009

Morons are on Ace’s site.

Here, we’re loving referred to as…

…?

62. lauraw - September 29, 2009

I’ll be sending down some other items as they come out of the pond before we close it down in a few weeks.

How many water bowls are you doing? One or two?

63. daveintexas - September 29, 2009

the pond is about to be CLOSED FOR BUSINESS

64. lauraw - September 29, 2009

We close down the filter pond and move the pump hose into the main pond so it doesn’t freeze and cover it up with a hoop house for the Winter.

65. pond night manager - September 29, 2009

The pond will close in fifteen minutes.
Please make your final selections and bring all purchases immediately to the pond-front for checkout.
As a reminder, the pond will open for business again in the spring.
We thank you for your business.
I repeat: The pond will close in fifteen minutes.

66. Joey Buzz - September 29, 2009

I always wished he would have described life here as “star shit” …but thats just me.

67. Dave in Texas - September 29, 2009

Nobody needs a frozen pump hose.

68. dan-O - September 29, 2009

How many people think like that?

Catholics do. (Or should, at least). The word “Catholic” itself means “universal.” And really all Christians, as you guys have already pointed out.

It is weird how so much of what he said just seems to further demonstrate the existence of God, but he did seem quite opposed to the idea of God. He must have had some odd personal bias or stumbling block.

I know he also threw himself into quite a hysterical panic that we would be destroying ourselves with nuclear war. In fact I think that was part of the motivation for him to make this show Cosmos. This panic probably didn’t help him come to terms with the idea of God.

69. scottw - September 29, 2009

Hey Laura, guess what last Saturday was.

70. Michael - September 29, 2009

She forgot your birthday again?

71. lauraw - September 29, 2009

SHIT!!!

Well, at least you’re not married to a girl who gets all obsessed about special dates…

72. Dave in Texas - September 29, 2009

Well it wasn’t the autumnal equinox.

What could it be, what could it be?

73. lauraw - September 29, 2009

Eleven years of wedded bliss.

74. harrison - September 29, 2009

Scott, consider yourself blessed and move on.

75. kevlarchick - September 29, 2009

laura, are you expecting a hard frost?

We will have light frost tomorrow, so I reckon you are in for it.

76. Dave in Texas - September 29, 2009

frost? already?

(congrats laura and scott. I’m glad you dint kill each other yet)

77. lauraw - September 29, 2009

I better check the weather forecast. That would mean I have a lot of plants to bring in tonight.

78. Frosty teh Snowman - September 29, 2009

I get no love. None.

79. xbradtc - September 29, 2009

Frosty always creeped me out.

And the fat fucker never brought me any presents.

So fuck him with a corn-cob pipe.

80. BrewFan - September 29, 2009

Eleven years is fantastic! Congratulations!

81. lauraw - September 29, 2009

Thanks guys. I’m glad to say we are very much in love.
Even if we generally ignore significant dates on the calendar. That crap just doesn’t matter to either one of us.

*looks at wedding picture on computer desk*
*picks it up and really looks at it*

Shit, we’re gettin’ old
Nice dress, though

82. daveintexas - September 29, 2009

It’s not the years you know,

ok it’s pretty much the years actually.

83. Michael - September 29, 2009

Eleven years? Pshaw. You’re just getting started. Congrats on making it through the introductory phase.

84. Michael - September 29, 2009

I’m glad to say we are very much in love.

Huh?

The key to a successful marriage is stubbornness. Both sides gotta be too stubborn to quit, because if you quit the other party gets to say “I TOLD YOU SO!”

Man, I should be charging you people for these pearls of wisdom.

85. Michael - September 29, 2009

Another key to a successful marriage is that both sides have to think it’s funny when the other party farts. Otherwise, the marriage is doomed.

My advice to you single people out there — don’t even think about getting serious with someone until you have ripped off a noteworthy fart in their presence and gauged the reaction.

You guys can start hitting my PayPal account any time to compensate me for this.

86. lauraw - September 29, 2009

Another tip; a pair should never go to bed angry, unless of the two of you, you are the light sleeper. Then go ahead and get your rest. You’ll be in a better position to deal with this shit conclusively at 3 am.

87. lauraw - September 29, 2009

CONCLUSIVELY.

88. lauraw - September 29, 2009

4) Always be willing to offer unsolicited praise to your husband or wife at any time, when they do something to deserve it. Unsolicited complaints however should be limited to the 3 am hour. Your spouse will be unable to mentally process more than one at this time, so pick a really good one.

89. Dave in Texas - September 29, 2009

Tell him he forgot to take out the trash at 3am. Say it times.

Watch the fun.

90. lauraw - September 29, 2009

*nudge*

*nudge, nudge*

You awake?

I’m really upset and I need to talk to you.

NOW.

91. Dave in Texas - September 29, 2009

3 times I meant.

92. wiserbud - September 29, 2009

I find that travleing a lot has helped.

congrats, you two.

93. Dave in Texas - September 29, 2009

Turn out the lights, and whisper “come here baby”.

To the dog.

94. Mrs. Peel - September 29, 2009

*furiously taking notes*

95. wiserbud - September 29, 2009

Spending a ton of time on the blogs chatting with anonyomous people for all over the country is amazingly good for a marriage.

gotta go now. bb tomorrow night.

96. lauraw - September 29, 2009

When he rolls over and rubs your fanny while you’re just waking up, say, “Raoul? Make sure his briefcase is gone.”

97. lauraw - September 29, 2009

Cya wiser

98. Michael - September 29, 2009

Morons are on Ace’s site.

Here, we’re loving referred to as…

…?

Commenters

99. lauraw - September 29, 2009

This is GOLD, Peel, GOLD.

Nobody else is gonna tell you this stuff.

100. Michael - September 29, 2009

CONCLUSIVELY.

I hate to say this, but one thing I learned from Dave is that it’s beneficial for a marriage if both parties own a gun. Tends to keep the discussion under control.

101. Dave in Texas - September 29, 2009

Detente.

Frankly I think that’s overrated, but YMMV.

OH OH… it’s important your kids know you’re in their corner in the really stressful times of their young lives, so if you disagree with your spouse on the matter, you really should say so in front of the kids. Always consider the options.

102. Michael - September 29, 2009

Good point, Dave. Get the kids involved on your side. That gives you major leverage.

103. scottw - September 29, 2009

“I find that traveling a lot has helped”

Wiserbud, just out of curiosity, do you have any neighbors that your dog doesn’t bark at?

104. Michael - September 29, 2009

Wiserbud, just out of curiosity, do you have any neighbors that your dog doesn’t bark at?

BWAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

(Scott, go buy your wife something nice. Right now, the last romantic gift she got came from me. Flowers always work.)

105. Lipstick - September 29, 2009

Heard this somewhere: “Keep his balls empty and his stomach full.”

106. lauraw - September 29, 2009

That was a romantic gift?

107. Michael - September 29, 2009

OK, I don’t anyone to get the wrong impression. I am not randomly sending romantic gifts to Laura. Here’s what happened:

1. Laura offered waterlily tubers, an offer we accepted.

2. I wanted to send Laura a thank-you gift. I solicited ideas from Cathy.

3. Cathy and Laura had previously discussed fragrances, and Cathy had an idea for a perfume Laura would really like (Simply by Clinique; and according to Cathy it’s gotta be the eau de parfum rather than the cologne for some reason). Cathy was low on this stuff herself and wanted me to get another bottle for her.

4. I went to Amazon.com and ordered Simply for Cathy and Laura.

108. scotw - September 29, 2009

That wasn’t her.

109. Lipstick - September 29, 2009

Balls empty is the only romantic gift a guy wants.

110. lauraw - September 29, 2009

No, I meant that I thought you were saying I smelled bad.

It really hurt my feelings, getting that perfume.
I cried for an hour.

111. Michael - September 29, 2009

That was a romantic gift?

Yeah, maybe I’m old-fashioned, but the way I grew up, buying perfume for a girl is considered romantic. I figured it was OK because of the prior conversation and it was kind of a joint gift from Cathy and me.

112. Dave in Texas - September 29, 2009

* cancels Victoria’s Secret order

113. Michael - September 29, 2009

No, I meant that I thought you were saying I smelled bad.

Oh hell no. I did not mean that. You do not smell bad at all.

Well, not until you’ve been dancing for awhile and work up a sweat.

114. scotw - September 29, 2009

I like blue Dave.

115. Michael - September 29, 2009

Come to think of it, maybe that’s why Cathy specified eau de parfum rather than cologne, because it lasts longer, and Cathy was downwind of the dance floor when Laura was sweatin’ like migrant labor in the bean fields.

116. Dave in Texas - September 29, 2009

Blue would look good on you Scott.

117. lauraw - September 29, 2009

If I was rank, it was only because your wife pinned my arm behind my back and made me harvest 1/2 acre of mint spears for her sick, out-of-control mojito habit.

she has a problem, I’m just sayin’

118. scotw - September 29, 2009

We have no daughters to sell to you.
Thank you, come again.

119. Michael - September 29, 2009

>>>Blue would look good on you Scott.

True dat.

I also noticed that Scott has those dreamy come-hither sexy eyes that are irresistible.

To women.

120. Michael - September 29, 2009

I’m still listening to that Carl Sagan remix video. It’s really appealing to me.

“The surface of the Earth is the shore of the Cosmic Ocean.”

121. Megan - September 30, 2009

How fucking profound.

You only follow in the footsteps of like the last five hundred computer games ever published.

122. Megan - September 30, 2009

EMBRACE ETERNITY!

123. Megan - September 30, 2009

…you flipping idiots.

Michael - September 30, 2009

Hi Megan! How are you doing?

124. harrison - September 30, 2009

I think Megan is the last five hundred computer games ever published and she’s jealous.

125. geoff - September 30, 2009

You only follow in the footsteps of like the last five hundred computer games ever published.

Save for the fact that Carl Sagan preceded all of those computer games.

126. reason - September 30, 2009

Either that, or she’s too young to have ever read Broca’s Brain.

127. Joey Buzz - September 30, 2009

were you guys talking about frost and S&L’s marriage in the same comment block…..intentionally?
geoff, have you commented on the death of the hockey stick somewhere? That sh*t is right up your avenue….

128. geoff - September 30, 2009

geoff, have you commented on the death of the hockey stick somewhere?

The problem is that it’s too far up my alley. I don’t do climate modeling, but I could, so I don’t feel like I can comment on any of that until I get into it at a professional level.

Which I have no intention of doing.

129. reason - September 30, 2009

“Professional” only means you’re getting paid for it.

130. Joey Buzz - September 30, 2009

dont get your triangles in a wad….just thought you may have some interesting comments on the most graph-tastic poly-stat intense subject to hit the nets since unemployment vs tarp projections by Team44 is all. ;)

131. Megan - September 30, 2009

geoff: “Save for the fact that Carl Sagan preceded all of those computer games”

Whiff. This post didn’t.

And hi, Butters. :) Not too badly, all things considered, thanks. You?

132. BrewFan - September 30, 2009

Butters

That never fails to make me laugh! Hi Megan *waves*

133. geoff - September 30, 2009

Whiff. This post didn’t.

You’re kidding. That’s the direction you’re going to go? A tribute to Carl Sagan isn’t worthy because the same points he made have been made since in computer games? And because the aforementioned tribute came after those computer games?

Stuff and nonsense. Without the stuff.

134. Michael - September 30, 2009

Not too badly, all things considered, thanks. You?

I’m just fine, Megan. My banana trees are bigger than Dave’s, and my Flag Counter is more impressive than the one at The Hostages, so those are daily sources of petty vindictive joy.

Glad you dropped by again. Searching on your IP address reveals that you were last here in May. Don’t be a stranger.

I still venerate you for the epic bitch fight with bbeck at AOSHQ years ago. That was an awesome beatdown you delivered. That’s when I first learned to fear you and love you. Then, IIRC, Laura recruited you to intervene in a religious thread here, and you cock-slapped me about some technical error I had made when discussing the Passion Narrative. I was pretty impressed by how well you know your Bible.

135. Michael - September 30, 2009

Some of you may not know Megan from the old days, so let me introduce you to her. According to Megan, she is simultaneously:

1. A high-level strategist for the Republican Party who personally knows every influential conservative in D.C.

2. Some kind of ninja assassin with many kills to her credit, who is now being hunted by intelligence agencies around the world seeking retribution.

3. A cancer patient, bald and wasted away from the chemo and radiation therapy, who is on the brink of death. In fact, she should be dead by now, based on the last medical report I read.

4. An aging lesbian with scores of young nubile conquests in her sexual history, because she is just irresistibly hot

Considering this resume, I would say that Megan is either a mental patient in a locked ward somewhere, or just a person who can’t resist pulling your leg. If I had to bet money, I would say mental patient, but that’s just me. What matters is that she can be wickedly funny and smart, and she’s basically a sweetie despite her combative posture.

Hey Megan, my wife has taken up knitting chemo caps for cancer patients with a church group, which they donate to a local hospital. Want one?

136. scottw - September 30, 2009

If you can see Megan, Megan can see you. If you can’t see Megan, you may be only seconds away from death.

137. scottw - September 30, 2009

I missed the bbeck beatdown, but I would have liked it.

138. Michael - September 30, 2009

Scott, I have thought about that, believe me. If Megan is not a mental patient, she could be #2, a ninja assassin. If so, I’m a dead man for teasing her.

*Michael holds his Kimber, watches the windows*

139. Michael - September 30, 2009

I missed the bbeck beatdown, but I would have liked it.

Bbeck was actually the source of the whole hump thing with Laura. Laura was trying to distinguish herself from bbeck flirting with everyone by flaunting references to her boobs (and a pic).

That was s strategy which earned Laura my eternal respect, because most of us know that Laurie is a hottie who would outshine bbeck in any room. Comment threads at AOSHQ can be a tough place for women, and Laura has handled the environment with humor and dignity.

140. scottw - September 30, 2009

I absolutely hated the big boob flaunting thing. I hated her and I don’t hate much.

141. Lipstick - September 30, 2009

I remember about 3 photos. What ever happened? Husband crack down?

142. Michael - September 30, 2009

I absolutely hated the big boob flaunting thing. I hated her and I don’t hate much.

Comment threads at AOSHQ can be a tough environment for women. Laura has managed to navigate with dignity and humor. Everyone respects her.

I think she’s a special person. Of course, you know that too, better than me.

143. Michael - September 30, 2009

I hated her and I don’t hate much.

Look, Scott, I’ve met you and you’re just not a hater. I can tell. I’m not a hater either. Hate is too much effort.

Plus, she does not deserve hate from us. That would honor her.

A better word is contempt.

144. Michael - September 30, 2009

What ever happened? Husband crack down?

I don’t know, Lipstick. I have a vague recollection of her saying that she was just too busy with her wonderful life to be online.

So, yeah, I was thinking husband crackdown also.

145. Dave in Texas - September 30, 2009

Boob girl’s major problem was she never saw a situation she couldn’t turn into a fight.

It got old quick.

146. Megan - September 30, 2009

geoff: “That’s the direction you’re going to go? A tribute to Carl Sagan isn’t worthy because the same points he made have been made since in computer games? And because the aforementioned tribute came after those computer games?”

No, the direction I’m going to go in is this: “all living things are literally related” is a fucking imbecilic point. The difference between tree DNA and human DNA is “negligible,” and that’s supposed to be inspiring or thought-provoking? Please. It’s Mass Effect. It’s Babylon 5 without the theme music. “We are all star stuff.” Hurrah! Let’s stand stock-still in awe and contemplate the glorious interconnexion of all life and the wonders of creation!

Whether one dumb thing is based upon another doesn’t matter; it’s still dumb, no matter who originally came up with it. And Sagan wasn’t the first person on earth to say it or demonstrate it in a memorable way. He was just the first person to demonstrate it in that particular way.

So this was silly. I don’t think that the quantifiably miniscule difference between tree and human DNA is some sort of grand significant point proving we’re just like trees, or whatever; to me it proves instead the enormous significance of the difference: complex iterative operations resulting in radically varying outcomes, chaos theory writ very large. The supposed Sagan revelation becomes even more ridiculous when you add the so-called C-value enigma and our vast tracts of non-coding DNA into the mix.

Only children or fools would consider this worthy of note; you should be grateful God is supposed to protect both.

147. Megan - September 30, 2009

Butters: 1. A high-level strategist for the Republican Party who personally knows every influential conservative in D.C.

Not anymore. I did some work for the SRPC, but that was before the Bush administration tried to get people in line on the amnesty thing. When that happened I stopped doing any work for the Republican Party.

2. Some kind of ninja assassin with many kills to her credit, who is now being hunted by intelligence agencies around the world seeking retribution.

No comment.

3. A cancer patient, bald and wasted away from the chemo and radiation therapy, who is on the brink of death. In fact, she should be dead by now, based on the last medical report I read.

My hair never fell out, and I’m off chemo again. It was messy and painful and it wasn’t doing any good. As for the “wasted away” part, I dunno, does a BMI of 12.5 qualify?

4. An aging lesbian

Hey, I’m only 31!

with scores of young nubile conquests in her sexual history

200 exactly.

because she is just irresistibly hot

Eh. I was a high 7 on a good day, before all the surgeries and so on. If you had to single out any one factor, I’d guess it was mostly due to the fact that a lot of girls saw my crankiness as something to be conquered. I drew hordes of would-be saviors. Of course, saving someone is tiring work, and eventually all of them dumped me, so there’s that.

148. Michael - September 30, 2009

non-coding DNA

Nope, Megan, you’re missing the point (the point being made by God). The DNA strand was a basic plan for life, with which God tinkered. The non-coding DNA actually illustrates this point. This is not chaos, it is cosmos. It speaks of a higher intelligence than us.

to me it proves instead the enormous significance of the difference: complex iterative operations resulting in radically varying outcomes

Uh huh, you go girl.

chaos theory writ very large.

Whoops. You fucked up there. Because the “outcomes” you are referring to are cosmic, — organized life which grows and colonizes and spreads — not chaotic.

149. Michael - September 30, 2009

200 exactly.

See, that right there is why I love you. You never fail to make me laugh.

150. geoff - September 30, 2009

And Sagan wasn’t the first person on earth to say it or demonstrate it in a memorable way.

Meh, 30 years ago the similarities in DNA were still a surprising outcome. And his popular reception speaks to the novelty of the concepts, or the appeal of his presentation, or both.

I don’t care much for the Gaia-type interpretation myself, but anything that makes people step back and look at the cosmic picture is worth a little New Age hokum.

151. geoff - September 30, 2009

I missed the bbeck beatdown, but I would have liked it.

I liked bbeck. Wish she would come back. I know that’s not a widely held opinion, but there ya go.

152. Michael - September 30, 2009

I know that’s not a widely held opinion, but there ya go.

WHERE THE FUCK IS MY BANHAMMER!!!

*Not in the attic. I’ll search the yard.*

153. Eddie The Bear - September 30, 2009

just use your Kimber

154. Megan - September 30, 2009

geoff: fair enough.

Butters: “Whoops. You fucked up there. Because the “outcomes” you are referring to are cosmic — organized life — not chaotic.”

Exactly wrong. You are in essence arguing from the anthropic principle, which is utterly ludicrous. Also, if you think that “chaotic” (by which I take it you mean “disorganized”) outcomes are the inevitable result of chaotic systems, you’re a complete idiot; I refer you to a basic fractal algorithm for summary proof.

“Uh huh, you go girl.”

Which word confused you? “Complex?” DNA is complex. We have no fucking clue what most of it does. “Iterative operations?” Evolution is exactly that. “Radically varying outcomes?” Isn’t that a fair way to characterize trees and humans?

I believe in God too, but to pretend that She had to “tinker” with DNA to get it to produce humans (or trees) is beyond stupid. God is looking down at you right now and sneering, “You little twerp. You think I couldn’t hit the balls with my cue stick in just the right way? You really an omniscient, omnipotent being has to “tinker” with her creation after the fact?” Besides (not to go too far off point) God could have created everything five seconds before you read this and you would have no way of knowing otherwise; it wouldn’t even be a “lie” (however you’d define that in context). As Gosse proved in his brilliant Omphalos, the creation of Adam ex nihilo would have necessitated the creation of evidence of prior existance: blood, hair, nails.

“This is not chaos, it is cosmos” may be a cute soundbite, but it’s absolutely meaningless. Dynamic systems can and do produce order, even organization, through adaptation and convergent evolution.

Scientists sound stupid when they pretend to know how or why life, or the universe, started. Christians sound equally stupid when they pretend that God must have “tinkered” with the universe because nothing at all makes sense otherwise. I’ll tell you what doesn’t make sense: designing an eye that’s upside down, backwards, and inside out.

Why is it that you all have such a huge fucking problem with saying the words, “I don’t know?”

155. geoff - September 30, 2009

Why is it that you all have such a huge fucking problem with saying the words, “I don’t know?”

Oh don’t you even go there. We know, I’m telling you, we really do.

We just don’t feel like explaining it right now.

156. Megan - September 30, 2009

I accept that geoff knows; I do not accept that Butters does.

157. geoff - September 30, 2009

Evolution is the chaotic brush which paints upon the deterministic canvas of DNA

158. geoff - September 30, 2009

Ah heck, that previous comment was supposed to be enclosed in sagan tags, i.e., [sagan] [/sagan]

159. Dave in Texas - September 30, 2009

Anybody know what that white stuff in a Twinkie is?

I read the label. I don’t believe it.

160. Michael - September 30, 2009

I believe in God too

Great! Now I just need to nudge you in the direction of Pure Lutheran Doctrine™.

I’ll tell you what doesn’t make sense: designing an eye that’s upside down, backwards, and inside out.

Why is it that you all have such a huge fucking problem with saying the words, “I don’t know?”

I don’t know. You are talking to Butters now, I’m serious.

Look, Megan, I used to spend a lot of time at atheist/evolutionary websites saying “I don’t know” but defending the Christian perspective. The “problem of the eye” which confounded Darwin is the tip of the iceberg.

Evolutionary biology answers many questions, but does not purport to address the issue of abiogenesis, which you mentioned, i.e., how did life start? Evolutionary biology assumes life.

I don’t know. I figure that a God worth worshiping has the answer. When I die and go to heaven, I am going to demand some answers. In the meantime, I place my faith on the record of God keeping His promises, and threats.

161. Michael - September 30, 2009

Anybody know what that white stuff in a Twinkie is?

Yes, I do.

The white stuff in a Twinkie is a declaration of the glory of God. It is matter and energy that has been organized to demonstrate His sovereignty over chaos, i.e., Satan, and reveal Himself to us.

Glad I could help out with that question, Dave.

162. Megan - September 30, 2009

Butters: “When I die and go to heaven”

That’s awfully presumptuous. Or does “Pure Lutheran Doctrine™” differ from my catechism on the basic fact that everyone deserves to go to Hell? :P

163. Michael - September 30, 2009

That’s awfully presumptuous. Or does “Pure Lutheran Doctrine™” differ from my catechism on the basic fact that everyone deserves to go to Hell?

We all deserve to go to Hell. Keep reading that cathechism about the “means of grace.”

Baptism.

The Word.

The Eucharist.

Confession and Absoution.

The Fellowship of Believers.

164. Michael - September 30, 2009

Megan, I’ve known friends who think they are too bad to merit God’s grace. It is really just a form of pride, the cardinal sin. They think they are beyond the reach of God’s grace, which is an insult to the sacrifice of Jesus.

165. Megan - September 30, 2009

You misunderstand. I’m Catholic, remember? There’s no such thing as a “means of grace” in my catechism. I find the very notion an absurd contradiction in terms.

166. Michael - September 30, 2009

It still bothers me to say “Jesus.” It seems to me, if we’re going to worship Him, then we ought to get His name right. The anglicized version of His name should be something like “Yeshua.”

167. geoff - September 30, 2009

The white stuff in a Twinkie is a declaration of the glory of God.

Yes, that sort of thing keeps me more of an agnostic than an atheist (though on a good day I’m a deist).

168. geoff - September 30, 2009

though on a good day I’m a deist

…where “good day” means facing down a pack of double-stuffed bad boys.

169. Michael - September 30, 2009

You misunderstand. I’m Catholic, remember? There’s no such thing as a “means of grace” in my catechism.

That’s just not so. You were not paying attention.

Catholics have more “means of grace” than Lutherans.

E.g,, for Catholics “extreme unction” is a means of grace.

Same thing for marriage, which is sacramental in Catholic doctrine.

170. Megan - September 30, 2009

Butters: The anglicized version of His name should be something like “Yeshua.”

That sounds really gay. Why am I not surprised that you proposed it?

171. Megan - October 1, 2009

Butters: “That’s just not so. You were not paying attention.

Catholics have more “means of grace” than Lutherans.”

I know zip about Lutherans, but “means of grace” sounds to me like works-based redemption, which is directly contrary to ALL things Catholic. You can’t earn grace, you can’t buy grace, and you definitely can’t deserve grace. By its nature, it’s a gift, and you are unworthy. You will always be unworthy. That’s absolutely central to the Catholic concept of redemption.

172. geoff - October 1, 2009

Same thing for marriage, which is sacramental in Catholic doctrine.

Puts an indelible mark on your soul, it does.

173. Michael - October 1, 2009

That sounds really gay. Why am I not surprised that you proposed it?

I’m not proposing it. It’s his name in Hebrew, which the Bible says was ordained by God.

The modern equivalent survives as the Jewish name Joshua.

174. Megan - October 1, 2009

“Joshua” sounds less gay, but that name is forever tainted by its association with The Left Wing.

175. Michael - October 1, 2009

“Joshua” sounds less gay, but that name is forever tainted by its association with The Left Wing.

Granted. But in Hebrew, the name means “God is our salvation.”

176. Mrs. Peel - October 1, 2009

Joshua was really Yehoshua. Jesus was Yeshua.

Glad to hear the Catholics are coming around on sola fide and sola gratia. Three more to go!

177. Michael - October 1, 2009

Puts an indelible mark on your soul, it does.

See. Geoff. Catholic doctrine has ventured into the area of human sexuality in a way the Lutheran doctrine does not.

So, Catholics condemn birth control, in vitro fertilization, and masturbation, because for Catholics sex is sacramental and sex necessarily should involve the risk of procreation, as God ordains.

I admire the Vatican for its intellectual consistency on this point, even though they are wrong. There is no scriptural support for this doctrine.

But, there is one good consequence of this Catholic doctrinal error. Where Lutherans and Catholics stand shoulder-to-shoulder is on the issue of the sanctity of unborn life. We are resolute with our Catholic friends in opposition to convenience abortions.

178. Megan - October 1, 2009

Mrs Peel:

Um, not really. We think faith is insufficient, but then we think everything is insufficient. “Sola gratia” has always been Catholic doctrine, AFAIK.

179. Megan - October 1, 2009

Butters: “for Catholics sex is sacramental and sex necessarily should involve the risk of procreation, as God ordains”

I don’t think the Church sees it as a “risk.” The proper word would be “purpose.” Genesis 1:28.

180. Michael - October 1, 2009

The proper word would be “purpose.” Genesis 1:28.

I stand corrected. Did I not tell you people that Megan knows her Bible?!?

Um, not really. We think faith is insufficient, but then we think everything is insufficient.

Yup. That’s the problem with Catholics. This is why they invent bullshit like Purgatory, obligatory Holy Days of Absolution, mandatory dogmas like the Assumption of Mary which youmust believe in order to be admitted to heaven.

Also, it’s actually true that President Kennedy was subject to the authority of the Pope if he wanted to go to stay out of hell. Google Bull Unum Sanctum.

181. Dave in Texas - October 1, 2009

I found my special purpose!

I’m going to do this a lot.

182. Michael - October 1, 2009

I found my special purpose!

Saying stupid shit?

What???

183. geoff - October 1, 2009

I found my special purpose!

Maybe he meant to say that on Lipstick’s thread.

184. Megan - October 1, 2009

Again, um, not really. I don’t deny that the Catholic Church has done many fucked-up things in the past, and still adheres to many fucked-up things in the present (hell, I was the one advocating issuing an arrest order for the Pope and fire-bombing the Vatican, not necessarily in that order, when the pedophile thing broke; I said that if Catholics couldn’t be trusted as a group to obey the laws of the United States then they should be treated as enemy combatants) but according to Catholic doctrine, obeying the Pope or believing one thing or another simply does not mean that you get to stay out of Hell. JFK had a much better grasp on this than you seem to.

But I’m not surprised that you’re wrong about this, as you were also wrong about “extreme unction.” I was offered that before I lapsed into a coma. Tangentially, I refused, but the point is that it was in no way presented to me as a “means” of obtaining grace. It would have been a mercy, but it wasn’t grace.

185. Michael - October 1, 2009

according to Catholic doctrine, obeying the Pope or believing one thing or another simply does not mean that you get to stay out of Hell. JFK had a much better grasp on this than you seem to.

Megan, as I understand it (could be wrong), a bull pronounces mandatory doctrine which is necessary to salvation, which is why it is not much used any more. Modern popes use the encyclical, which is more like a sermon that offers friendly guidance from the pope, but unlike a papal bull, obedience is not necessary to salvation.

Regarding Bull Unum Sanctum, we are talking about medieval politics, and Kennedy was right to repudiate it.

186. Megan - October 1, 2009

PS. What’s your problem with the Assumption of Mary? She was the first (or second, depending on what you believe about Lilith) human to ever have existed without the taint of the original sin, if you believe in the Immaculate Conception (nota bene: it had nothing to do with Jesus). If anyone deserved (inasmuch as anyone can deserve) to go Heaven, she did. cf: Millenium, Anamnesis:

“She knows she’s very special…”
“She knows her life is ruined.”

Three lives totally fucked beyond belief (snark), just to save the rest of us.

187. Megan - October 1, 2009

Butters: “Regarding Bull Unum Sanctum, we are talking about medieval politics, and Kennedy was right to repudiate it.”

Whatever it may have been, if it involved the President of the United States being beholden to the Pope, damn right he was.

188. Megan - October 1, 2009

PPS.

Butters: “as I understand it (could be wrong), a bull pronounces mandatory doctrine which is necessary to salvation”

Nothing can be necessary to salvation. That is the central teaching of the Catholic Church. If anyone, even a pope, ever said otherwise, he or she was going directly against Catholic doctrine.

189. Megan - October 1, 2009

PPPS.

Butters, get on AIM. You seem to be very confused about one hell of a lot of things about Catholic theology, and you make yourself look like a goddamn ass when you start pontificating about it. Maybe I can set you straight, though to be frank, I kinda doubt it.

190. Megan - October 1, 2009

PPPPS.

From Sparkles’ website: “I’ve “known” Sparkles over 3 websites and approximately 5 years. My internet identity is pretty firmly established. You want to spend your time trying to debunk it, knock yourself out. I have plenty of things to hide, but my gender, my sexuality, and my salary are not among them…

“Pick your enemies more carefully.”

Same goes for you lot. Fucking watch it. We’re not in the fucking mood tonight. Tomorrow, another personality might be more or less forgiving, but do you really want to chance that?

We pick our enemies based on how much they annoy us, essentially. Don’t get up to that tank. We will fuck you over. Okay, maybe not as much as Olympia Snowe holding up a Services Committee for three fucking years for our lackluster promotion, but we’ll find a fucking way.

Call it karma.

191. Megan - October 1, 2009

PPPPPS. And you’re not anonymous. Only we are. Fuck you. Retards. There was a reason we were made the only fucking expert on coherent extrapolative randomization codas in the whole fucking world and given operational capacity on same. So fuck you, and all that.

192. geoff - October 1, 2009

coherent extrapolative randomization codas

Gotta admit: I have no freakin’ idea what that means. But then I’m the guy who just ran his CFD code for 5 more hours because he slipped a digit.

Beer might have been involved.

193. Megan - October 1, 2009

We now need our current girlfriend, whom we’ve never actually met, nor yet ever had sex with, which reaches the point of 6+ years. Oh, shut up. It’s better than 99% of you lot. And at least I was married once.

…okay, the girlfriend’s not around. So I guess I’ll just stick with abusing you idiots. Which isn’t all that difficult a task, come to think of it. God really does have mercy.

194. Megan - October 1, 2009

geoff, just because I respect him: “coherent extrapolative randomization codas (transposition admit: my parentheses: “Gotta admit: I have no freakin’ idea what that means)

“Coherent:” = does work that works on down the line. Does the first thing make you doubt the last thing? If no, you get “coherent.” That’s all it means.

“Extrapolative:” Well, all *that* means is what you take from the initial parameters of any given condition, and use those to get to final conclusion. Pretty straightforward.

Do you have any other probelems with our characterization?

195. Megan - October 1, 2009

If so, we’ll be happy to address it.

196. Megan - October 1, 2009

Oh and we saw our own predecessors in re: spelling mistakes, and us. If that’s the best you can do, then pre-emptively, fuck you. You suck.

197. Megan - October 1, 2009

“We do what we must because we can”

- the only real Christian doctrine in the fucking world.

198. Megan - October 1, 2009

Fuck you if you can’t see that.

199. Megan - October 1, 2009

You’re a fucking dumbass.

200. Megan - October 1, 2009

(NB: for the last half hour or so, we could not post on this site. So we were mildly pissed, and blamed Butters for the fact. In turn, it seems it was due to a random internet thingie.)

201. lauraw - October 1, 2009

Hey there, good morning everybo-

*skims thread*

*backs slowly out of room*

202. geoff - October 1, 2009

Do you have any other probelems with our characterization?

Oh, I know what the individual words mean. I extrapolate and use random functions all the time. I’ve even been coherent once or twice. But even after the charity of your explanation, I have no idea what CERCs are. Or even what field they belong to.

203. Michael - October 1, 2009

Nothing can be necessary to salvation. That is the central teaching of the Catholic Church. If anyone, even a pope, ever said otherwise, he or she was going directly against Catholic doctrine.

Erm, faith is necessary to salvation. Everybody sorta agrees on that, including all the popes.

Maybe you should read the Wikipedia article on Christianity, just to get yourself started with the whole Christian theology thing.

You’re a fucking dumbass.

Love you too, sweetie. Get some sleep.

204. Dave in Texas - October 1, 2009

205. scottw - October 1, 2009

Dave, that was funny!

206. Michael - October 1, 2009

Does Dave like pie?

Inquiring minds want to know.

207. compos mentis - October 1, 2009

This conversation was interesting and amusing for various reasons until it became boorish.

I’m going to go make a bowl of oatmeal while contemplating life teaming on a speck of dust in a sunbeam in a vast, ever-expanding warehouse.

And I’m going to try not to be sad because Michael was mean to Dave.

208. Michael - October 1, 2009

And I’m going to try not to be sad because Michael was mean to Dave.

Mean?

That was an homage to what is probably the most famous joke ever at IB.

209. geoff - October 1, 2009

Or even what field they belong to.

Unless it’s market forecasting.

210. compos mentis - October 1, 2009

From the Book of Compos 1:1

http://tinyurl.com/ydlj7u5

211. compos mentis - October 1, 2009

That was supposed to be from the book of “Compos”

Michael, if you would be so kind as to fix it, I will forgive you for being mean to Dave.

212. compos mentis - October 1, 2009

Thank you, Michael. Hug?

213. Michael - October 1, 2009

No.

214. Lipstick - October 1, 2009

Heh.

215. compos mentis - October 1, 2009

Awww, c’mon big guy! Give us a squeeze! *holds arms wide open*

216. Dave in Texas - October 1, 2009

Oh sure cm.

*hugsies*

217. compos mentis - October 1, 2009

Whoooo loooovesss Michael?

Compos does!

218. compos mentis - October 1, 2009

Thanks Dave!

Dave gives good hugs.

219. geoff - October 1, 2009

Dave gives good hugs.

…and they never end.

220. compos mentis - October 1, 2009

hahaha! Yeah, you can let go now, fella.

221. lauraw - October 1, 2009

http://www.mynorthwest.com/?nid=76&sid=219520#comments

This video is long but it grows on you. Looks like a nice bunch of kids having fun. Makes ya smile.

Especially the young man at 3:42. Holy shit.

222. harrison - October 1, 2009

I’ve just finished reading through this thread and this is what I take away from it:
Megan is fucked-up like a brickbat.

223. composmentis - October 1, 2009

Especially the young man at 3:42. Holy shit.

I was expecting some outrageous costume at 3:42, not for lauraw to go all cougar on us :)

Fun video indeed!

224. Dave in Texas - October 1, 2009

Hah… that does put a smile on your face.

>> hahaha! Yeah, you can let go now, fella.

What? Hey, you’re lucky it’s me and not Laura*. She’d be coppin a feel.

* Ok that makes no sense really. You’re very unlucky.

225. Mark in NJ - October 1, 2009

Megan – you seem like a truly scary person…but I do agree w/ you about the weirdness of conservative bloggers’ inability/unwillingness to say, “I don’t know.”

226. lauraw - October 1, 2009

She said no such thing, Mark. When she said ‘you all’ she was not referring to ‘all you conservatives.’ Especially since she stands pretty far to the right of most of these guys.

That was unnecessarily snide. How is your day going today? You OK?

227. Dave in Texas - October 1, 2009

Maybe he needs a hug too?

Good luck Mark!

228. composmentis - October 1, 2009

*puts down pudding but leaves spoon in mouth. shuffles over to Mark with pants around ankles*

Mark needs a hug?

229. Mark in NJ - October 1, 2009

Sorry Laura – didn’t intend snideness. Just something I used to notice back at Geoff’s and here, too — issues that make my head spin with all their complications (immigration is one I remember) didn’t seem to have that effect on conservative posters. I remember thinking, “How can you be so sure that’s the solution?” A source of strength in some ways, I suppose, and maybe I’m envious, too. I like my gray areas, but I admit they don’t always keep me moving forward.

Thanks for reaching out…my day’s going OK (too much work). I hope all is OK w/ you.

230. Dave in Texas - October 1, 2009

>> but I do agree w/ you about the weirdness of conservative bloggers’ inability/unwillingness to say, “I don’t know.”

This from the guy who loves to call people on their “sweeping generalizations”.

Then the intentions disclaimer, followed of course with the explanation which gives “meaningful context” to the jackassery.

You kill me.

231. lauraw - October 1, 2009

Yeah, you’re too attuned to the delicious nuancey shadings and complexities of life that we rockheaded dummies are blind and deaf to. That’s the whole problem right there in a nutshell.

Sorry. I guess that particular bit can make me snide too.

But listen; there’s absolutely no nuance to the fact that compos wants to hug you with his dingle out. You boys play nice, now.

232. kevlarchick - October 1, 2009

*steals the rest of Compos’ pudding*

233. composmentis - October 1, 2009

to the fact that compos wants to hug you with his dingle out

Hey! I gots on my Wonder Woman Underoos.™

*steals the rest of Compos’ pudding*

It’s alright, kc. I’ll share. I couldn’t find any tapioca, so I used a bunch of ant eggs instead.

234. Mark in NJ - October 1, 2009

Wow, that attempt at conciliation didn’t go too well.

235. daveintexas - October 1, 2009

Poor execution, limited self-awareness.

But I’m sure your intentions were fucking awesome.

236. lauraw - October 1, 2009

*holds up card with 4.5 on it*

237. geoff - October 1, 2009

I remember thinking, “How can you be so sure that’s the solution?”

It’s one of the fundamental conservative tenets: “If you’re not sure, don’t fuck with it.”

It’s not always that we think we understand complex problems fully – often it’s just that we’re sure that every proposed solution is going to have unintended consequences that will make things worse.

But immigration is an easy one: if it’s illegal, then enforce the law.

238. lauraw - October 1, 2009

How charmingly uncomplicated you are, geoff.

*shakes small teddy bear rattle in geoff’s face*

yes you are you are such a sweet boy yes you aaaarrre

239. Mark in NJ - October 1, 2009

Dave – your predispositions (and that “train to Dachau” simile) disqualify you from judging.

Laura – I’m not proud of that 4.5 (unless it’s out of 5.0), so I’ll think about what I might have said differently.

Geoff – nice as always; though I shudder to think what you’d write if we didn’t have a connection to Mrs. G in common.

240. geoff - October 1, 2009

though I shudder to think what you’d write if we didn’t have a connection to Mrs. G in common.

Oh, it can get kind of nasty. I used to be universally reasonable and reasoned, refraining from insulting trolls and concentrating on their arguments. But then I discovered (well after everybody else), that their sole purpose was to disrupt the conversations on threads and draw attention to themselves.

So now I just make fun of them as soon as they appear.

241. Megan - October 1, 2009

Butters:

“Erm, faith is necessary to salvation. Everybody sorta agrees on that, including all the popes. “

Dead wrong, even about your own faith. The doctrine of “sola gratia” contradicts you explicitly.

“Maybe you should read the Wikipedia article on Christianity”

And now the problem becomes clear. You are basing your understanding of faith on Wikipedia.

You fucking idiot.

242. Megan - October 1, 2009

geoff: “It’s not always that we think we understand complex problems fully – often it’s just that we’re sure that every proposed solution is going to have unintended consequences that will make things worse.”

Very good summation.

243. lauraw - October 1, 2009

Meh, I may have bit your head off. Let’s just make finger-guns at each other and move on.

244. lauraw - October 1, 2009

That was to Mark.

245. Megan - October 1, 2009

PS – PERSONAL. Laura, we still love you. Thanks for defending us. :) You’re a darling.

246. harrison - October 1, 2009

You fucking idiot.

You have the social grace of a fart.

247. Dave in Texas - October 1, 2009

Mark, he might tell you to fuck off with your incessant sniping and needling. Or at least learn to figure out that you, you know, actually do that, so you can properly manage your expectations.

I don’t know. He’s pretty nice.

I’m not.

248. Megan - October 1, 2009

harrison: “You have the social grace of a fart.”

And you have its significance.

We’ve never pretended to be nice. We are, however, probably the most intelligent human being to ever have existed. Which is probably why we drink so much vodka.

249. harrison - October 1, 2009

If you laided-off the sauce there might be fewer we’s.

250. Megan - October 1, 2009

No.

251. compos mentis - October 1, 2009

Has everyone seen Fight Club?

I think Megan is actually Michael’s Tyler Durden. It makes so much sense!

252. Dave in Texas - October 1, 2009

Harrison, ix-nay on the ee-way.

It’s the oices-vay. Again-way.

253. harrison - October 1, 2009

So, you’re proud to be a drunk?

254. Megan - October 1, 2009

harrison: “So, you’re proud to be a drunk?”

[snorts] Ask us that again while you’re translating the set {aaa} into {ba, ab} and show your work; also, demonstrate how a zeta function over sigma five prime in an alpha series irreducibly resolves to infinity by the second iteration.

You should ask yourself why you’re proud to be sober. There seems to be little reason.

255. Megan - October 1, 2009

Frankly, Laura and I exhale more brain cells on an average day than you twits ever got in the first place.

256. harrison - October 1, 2009

You should ask yourself why you’re proud to be sober.

Ummm, ’cause I can think clearly.

257. Megan - October 1, 2009

harrison: “Ummm, ’cause I can think clearly.”

LIE

258. harrison - October 1, 2009

Oh, SHIT! You got me there!

259. Dave in Texas - October 1, 2009

This is like watching Tourette’s Guy with a slightly spiffier plot line.

Well that and you know he’s acting.

260. Megan - October 1, 2009

[kindly] We did, but we’re not going to gloat over it. Thinking clearly is a fucking curse, but it’s nothing a few bottles of Stolichnaya can’t cure.

261. geoff - October 1, 2009

irreducibly resolves to infinity

I don’t know nuthin’ bought no Zeta series – my math pretty much stopped with PDEs, conformal mapping, linear algebra, and perturbation theory – but I thought I should be able to make sense out of that clause, at least. But I’m stumped.

262. geoff - October 1, 2009

Oops: “bought” = “’bout”

263. Michael - October 1, 2009

The reference to Wikipedia was a joke, Megan.

Ask us that again while you’re translating the set {aaa} into {ba, ab}

The answer is 32.

also, demonstrate how a zeta function over sigma five prime in an alpha series irreducibly resolves to infinity by the second iteration.

Also 32. Thought you could trick me, huh?

264. harrison - October 1, 2009

…but it’s nothing a few bottles of Stolichnaya can’t cure.

It’s like watching a trainwreck.

265. Megan - October 1, 2009

47, doofus.

266. Michael - October 1, 2009

*double-checks his work*

Damn, your right. Now I’m really embarrassed.

267. Megan - October 1, 2009

harrison:

You’re a twit, and frankly, the idea of you watching anything we do gives us the fucking creeps.

268. harrison - October 1, 2009

That’s a plus.

269. Megan - October 1, 2009

Butters:

*double-checks his work*
Damn, your right. Now I’m really embarrassed.

Thank you. Rules of Megan, #1: We are always right.

270. Megan - October 1, 2009

harrison: “That’s a plus.”

You’re also a dumbass.

271. harrison - October 1, 2009

Heh. This is fun.

272. daveintexas - October 1, 2009

I can never tell if it’s the giant brain or the vodka. It’s subtle.

273. Megan - October 1, 2009

Indeed. :)

274. Megan - October 1, 2009

to both

275. geoff - October 1, 2009

On an unrelated note: Did Ace really say that he hated Fifth Element? ‘cuz that’s just wrong.

276. Mark in NJ - October 1, 2009

Geoff – I’m not sure immigration is that easy. Lately, I’ve become involved w/ a group, visiting detainees at an ICE detention center in Elizabeth, NJ. These people — from Indonesia, Congo, other places — have become friends to me, with crazy, harrowing stories. So have their families (incl. children born here and therefore US citizens). They work hard, pay taxes, have no interest in a free ride.

Obviously, a country needs to protect its borders, and I guess it’s legal to deport these people and break up their families, but it sure doesn’t feel ok. And not a good idea on many practical levels either.

So…deport them all: not easy; change the law: not easy; continue with the status quo: not easy. Once you know the individuals, it’s not an easy one at all.

277. Michael - October 1, 2009

Yeah, I noticed that too, Geoff. How can you hate a movie featuring a super-hot redhead who is half-nekkid?

278. Megan - October 1, 2009

No one is allowed to hate The Fifth Element, just because of Milla Jovovich’s breasts. Also, the Bruce Willis “negotiation” scene.

279. Lipstick - October 1, 2009

We don’t have to break up their families — send the whole family home. And make a law or amendment saying that if you’re here illegally, any kids born here don’t get citizenship.

280. Michael - October 1, 2009

BTW, Mark, I’m on board with you about immigration, i.e., there are no easy answers to the mess we have created.

See, right there I said “I don’t know” again.

Dang, I must be a closet liberal.

281. daveintexas - October 1, 2009

>> Did Ace really say that he hated Fifth Element? ‘cuz that’s just wrong.

hahahaha. He did.

My favorite part of that movie was Oldman. He cracked me up.

Milla is just too damned skinny. Does nothing for me.

282. harrison - October 1, 2009

They work hard, pay taxes, have no interest in a free ride.

The first thing they did when they got here was to shit on our law.
Sorry, no .

283. Lipstick - October 1, 2009

Although, Mark, I do understand your feelings. I can be all hard-ass from far away, but if I actually knew some of the people you know. . .

284. geoff - October 1, 2009

Geoff – I’m not sure immigration is that easy

Heh – two years ago I wrote on my blog:

For liberals, illegal immigration is a social services and human rights issue.

For conservatives, illegal immigration is a foreign policy & crime issue.

incl. children born here and therefore US citizens

That law is the real source of the problem.

I guess it’s legal to deport these people and break up their families

Their families are broken up only if they insist on leaving their children here. I wrote a blog post about that as well.

285. geoff - October 1, 2009

Milla is just too damned skinny. Does nothing for me.

More for me!!

286. Megan - October 1, 2009

Oh please. We’re 5’7 and barely 80 lbs. You think anyone’s too “skinny” for us?

The real problem is why ALL “straight” girls think Angelina Jolie is so fucking hot. Our fucking MOM said she’d do her over a night of passion fruit coolers, and that’s an image we do not want in our head.

287. Michael - October 1, 2009

I’m not all gooey humanitarian about the plight of illegals. It’s more the WSJ perspective — illegals are an essential labor pool that has been grafted into the economy, and as a practical matter, it would be economic insanity to deport them all even if we could.

288. geoff - October 1, 2009

illegals are an essential labor pool that has been grafted into the economy

To resurrect our old argument: “…but at the cost of suppressing technical innovation and modernization in manufacturing, agriculture, and construction.”

289. Megan - October 1, 2009

Butters: “I’m not all gooey humanitarian about the plight of illegals. It’s more the WSJ perspective”

Again, you prove why you cannot be trusted as a conservative.

290. daveintexas - October 1, 2009

That’s cool, you can have her.

You’re very welcome.

Michael, it’s economic suicide to keep them.

So I’ll take the insanity.

291. daveintexas - October 1, 2009

meant economic and cultural suicide.

292. harrison - October 1, 2009

That’s very colonialist of you, Michael.
The law comes first.

293. Megan - October 1, 2009

Michael is, fundamentally, a liberal.

294. Megan - October 1, 2009

Which is why we do not trust him. Ever. About anything.

295. Michael - October 1, 2009

Like I said, this issue involves difficult trade-offs no matter what you do.

I think we all agree that it’s crazy to grant automatic citizenship to anyone borne here. The second generation is the biggest problem, by all accounts.

296. geoff - October 1, 2009

The second generation is the biggest problem, by all accounts.

Yup. The first generation is very law-abiding. The second generation is out of control. I wrote a post on that, as well.

297. lauraw - October 1, 2009

*gives Michael the crazy-eye*

298. Megan - October 1, 2009

Butters: “The second generation is the biggest problem, by all accounts.”

Again, you know zip. The third and the fourth generations are the absolute worst, even according to the horribly left-wing SLPC. Second generations are relatively benign, given that they tend to be mostly influenced by first generation immigrants, who are the best.

299. Dave in Texas - October 1, 2009

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

GET BACK ON THE BOAT LAURA, YOU TROUBLEMAKER YOU

300. lauraw - October 1, 2009

I can’t get *back* on no boat, I was borned here!

301. Megan - October 1, 2009

Laura’s right. Michael deserves nothing but a crazy-eye, even if it does come from Connecticut.

302. geoff - October 1, 2009

The third and the fourth generations are the absolute worst, even according to the horribly left-wing SLPC.

That could be. The study I read didn’t address later generations.

Second generations are relatively benign

Naw – the 2nd generation is left to fend for themselves while their parents work their butts off, with all the temptations of American culture to corrupt them. Their parents have no idea what their kids are facing, and so the 2nd generation ends up with higher-than-average incarceration rates and a host of other social ills.

303. Megan - October 1, 2009

Also, you cand get theah from heah

304. Dave in Texas - October 1, 2009

‘Back on the boat’ is code-word stuff.

305. lauraw - October 1, 2009

We all do that here in Yankeeland, Megan. That’s pretty much all we ever say to each other.

Sucks when you really do need directions.

306. Megan - October 1, 2009

geoff: “Naw – the 2nd generation is left to fend for themselves while their parents work their butts off, with all the temptations of American culture to corrupt them. Their parents have no idea what their kids are facing, and so the 2nd generation ends up with higher-than-average incarceration rates and a host of other social ills.”

Anecdotally, we’d agree with you. All the 2nd-gen immigrants we know fit that model. But FBI modelling data proves it’s wrong. 2nd-gens tend to go back to more revisionary – oh, fuck the semantics, more horrid thoughts than their parents have adapted to. Look up the rolls for La Raza and Al Qaeda. (Yes, there are “official” Al Qaeda groups in the United States, and no, we don’t prosecute them. Getting pissed yet?) 3rd and 4th are the absolute worst. They’re the ones who tend to join mara salvatrucha. We’ve butchered enough of those bastards to know that.

307. geoff - October 1, 2009

I based my comment on this study:

Incarceration rates increase significantly for all US-born coethnics without exception. That is most notable for Mexicans, whose incarceration rate increases more than eightfold to 5.9 percent among the US born; for Vietnamese (from 0.46 to 5.6 percent among the US born); and for the Laotians and Cambodians (from 0.92 percent to 7.26 percent, the highest of any group except for native blacks). …

Thus, while incarceration rates are found to be extraordinarily low among immigrants, they are also seen to rise rapidly by the second generation. Except for the Chinese and Filipinos, the rates of all US-born Latin American and Asian groups exceed that of the referent group of non-Hispanic white natives.

308. Megan - October 1, 2009

MIS, what a fucking brilliant source.

309. Dave in Texas - October 1, 2009

I thought the worst MS-13 fuckers were all 1st recent border crossers?

I don’t know why I thought that. It’s probably a construct based on anecdotal crime stories here in Texas.

I don’t do this for a living.

310. geoff - October 1, 2009

MIS, what a fucking brilliant source.

Except that in this case, they were bending over backwards trying to show that there was no criminality problem due to illegal immigration.

311. Dave in Texas - October 1, 2009

1st generation.

I told you I don’t do this for a living.

312. Megan - October 1, 2009

Though their conclusions can reasonably be said to support our assertions, we have MAJOR problems with their methodology. Again, check the FBI casebooks on this. If you want unbiased and statistical, there’s your fucking source.

313. geoff - October 1, 2009

I told you I don’t do this for a living.

Seems like today nobody’s doing much of anything for a living.

314. Megan - October 1, 2009

geoff: “Except that in this case, they were bending over backwards trying to show that there was no criminality problem due to illegal immigration.”

And we agree with that. We just don’t agree with their numbers, or how they got them.

315. geoff - October 1, 2009

Again, check the FBI casebooks on this. If you want unbiased and statistical, there’s your fucking source.

I recall looking at their annual crime stats, but only finding a breakdown per ethnicity, not immigration status. When the immigration debate heats up next year, I’ll try again.

316. Megan - October 1, 2009

Fair enough.

317. Megan - October 1, 2009

“I’m not even angry, I’m being so sincere right now, even though you broke my heart and killed me, and tore me to pieces, and threw every piece into a fire…”

But “there’s no sense crying over every mistake….”

318. Megan - October 1, 2009

“We do what we must because we can”

319. harrison - October 1, 2009

Jeez, lady. Go ahead and pass out, already.

320. Dave in Texas - October 1, 2009

I think that one is the fifteen year old boy talking.

Not sure. I’m outta practice.

321. Megan - October 1, 2009

This would be more impressive if either one of you could prove the passed-out fifteen year-old boy wrong about anything.

Otherwise it’s just pointless. Just like you.

322. Old Guy in the Stands at the Ball Game - October 1, 2009

GITJER PROGRAMS HERE!!
CAN’T TELL ONE PERSONALITY
FROM ANOTHER WITHOUT A PROOOOGRAM!!

323. Megan - October 1, 2009

All you seem to have against us is that we’re “rude,” or that we don’t have any “social graces.”

Well fuck us, but that’s not an argument.

324. Dave in Texas - October 1, 2009

That would require some desire on my part to impress you.

Not feelin that.

325. Megan - October 1, 2009

ps. (kinda.) Can we “unsubscribe” people like “Old Guy” from, well, everything?

326. Megan - October 1, 2009

Dave: “323. Dave in Texas – October 1, 2009, That would require some desire on my part to impress you. Not feelin that.”

Which was never the point. The point was, do you agree with us or not, and either or, on what basis?

327. Megan - October 1, 2009

Show your work.

328. Old Guy in the Stands at the Ball Game - October 1, 2009

Just tryin’ to make a livin’ here…

329. Dave in Texas - October 1, 2009

Agree with you? Which one of you? The “random quoting” you, the “fuck all y’all” you, or the stalker you?

I guess, just based on the odds, I might agree with 2 out of 7 of you.

But I don’t even know what the fuck you’re talking about.

330. Dex - October 1, 2009

*delurks*
Is this thread going to go full circle and have Michael relating the Doctrine of Election to immigration policy? If so, I’m making some popcorn.

*re-lurks*

331. compos mentis - October 1, 2009

I don’t know, Dex. I think Michael might have shot himself in the face in an attempt to get rid of Megan Durden.

332. Michael - October 1, 2009

Is this thread going to go full circle and have Michael relating the Doctrine of Election to immigration policy?

*thinks it over*

Hmmmmmm.

333. Megan - October 1, 2009

Dave: ” the stalker you”

Oh, don’t flatter yourself.

334. Dave in Texas - October 1, 2009

Ninja please, I am not as dumb as I look.

I’m not talking about me.

335. Megan - October 1, 2009

Also, there have been multiple times when we’ve been attacked by everyone else on a message board. So this isn’t new, this isn’t fun, and this is definitely not predictable. We’ll win, and it won’t be messy. It’ll just be boring.

But don’t let that stop you. It never has anyone else.

[sigh] Predictable.

336. daveintexas - October 1, 2009

Honey, I’m not attacking you. Really. Chill.

337. Megan - October 1, 2009

We always liked you, Dave. :)

338. Megan - October 1, 2009

…and not just because of the “in Texas” tag and because we have a thing for cowboy hats. Um, okay, we’ll shut up right about now.

339. daveintexas - October 1, 2009

And I like you too Megan. It’s just the worry-wort in me. No offense intended.

340. Megan - October 1, 2009

np.

341. Megan - October 1, 2009

We also have a major thing for librarian specs. Can’t help it. Weak in the knees on those girls.

342. Megan - October 1, 2009

[confession time] The cowboy hats thing is only for guys, though. Girls can’t pull it off. It just looks wrong.

343. Megan - October 1, 2009

Also, naked men just look wrong, which is why we could never be straight. We’d be laughing our head off whenever he disrobed, which might put a crimp in our sex life…

…not that it’s any great shakes right now, or has even existed for the past several years. But still. Naked men. That’s total (if unintentional, if you don’t believe in God) comedy.

344. Megan - October 1, 2009

[hums to herself]

“Give me a reason to live,
You can leave your hat on…”

345. Megan - October 1, 2009

“And the science gets done, and you make a neat gun for the people who are still alive…”

346. harrison - October 1, 2009

We’ll win, and it won’t be messy. It’ll just be boring.

And what would you consider as winning?

347. Megan - October 1, 2009

Good question. We’ve never “won” yet.

348. BrewFan - October 1, 2009

Megan, give me a shot and I’ll have you playing for the other team in no time.

349. BrewFan - October 1, 2009

I have never had the honor of meeting Megan but that doesn’t mean I don’t have a mental image of her

http://tinyurl.com/yctqda5

350. Russ from Winterset - October 1, 2009

Heh.

Meganpinto? Wickedmegan?

(What? SOMEONE had to say it!)

351. Will - October 1, 2009

In case anyone here has no idea what the f’ “they’re” quoting.

Michael - October 1, 2009

Good question. We’ve never “won” yet.

Really?

*ponders this*

OK, I surrender. You were right and I was wrong. About everything.

It would help if you could send me an email detailing my new positions on Christian doctrine and immigration policy, so I can get it right in future posts.

352. Megan - October 1, 2009

“OK, I surrender. You were right and I was wrong. About everything.”

We accept. Thank you.

353. Megan - October 1, 2009

Incidentally, we’re on AIM with our functional address. shivaxid@ either yahoo.com or gmail.com. You’re welcome.

354. d3ft punk - October 1, 2009

Golly gee, I should get banned more often.

Keep this up and you start getting CPM or something.

355. doc - October 2, 2009

wow Megan, I feel sorry for you. Really. I hope you find your answers.

356. Megan - October 2, 2009

…this was prompted by what?

357. Megan - October 2, 2009

Russ: bite your tongue.

Brew: no. We have a pointier chin, we’re a redhead, and we have green eyes. We are also much paler and much thinner and a lot less pretty.

358. harrison - October 2, 2009

…this was prompted by what?

He probably read through your thread of babbling insanities.

359. Megan - October 2, 2009

‘struth.

Hi harrison.

360. Megan - October 2, 2009

But remember: we were right. On all points.

cf: Butters’ last post. We are always right, no matter how insane we might sound at the time.

361. Megan - October 2, 2009

While we’re here…

PERSONAL TO BUTTERS: “Searching on your IP address reveals that you were last here in May. Don’t be a stranger.”

Fuck you. We’ve given you a means to contact us (AIM, shivaxid@yahoo.com). If you want to stay in touch there’s your fucking chance. If you don’t, we couldn’t care less, but don’t pretend it’s some sort of manna from heaven when we do remember to drop by your stupid fucking site in between hospitalizations. Honestly, if you can only stand to speak to us every six months or so, try acting like something vaguely resembling a man and just fucking admit it. The whole “MEGAN! I LOVE YOU! SO GLAD TO SEE YOU AGAIN!” schtick is getting kinda old.

362. harrison - October 2, 2009

Take the hint, then.

363. Megan - October 2, 2009

Which one?

“Glad you dropped by again” or “Don’t be a stranger?”

Maybe “I still venerate you?” or “I… fear you and love you?”

Maybe you should tell him to stop sending mixed signals. We’ve responded with nothing but contempt.

364. harrison - October 2, 2009

Um… take a hike?

365. Megan - October 2, 2009

Sure. As soon as he says that.

366. Michael - October 2, 2009

Sure. As soon as he says that.

Personal to Megan:

I don’t have an AIM account, in fact, I don’t IM with anyone, or Twitter for that matter. I just don’t enjoy it or have time for it. I set up a Facebook page awhile back and never use it. I registered (as Butters) at that discussion group site you told me about a couple of years ago (the name escapes me) just to say hi to you, visited a few time, and hated that place. The vitriol there was obnoxious.

But, I tried to welcome and humor you here, even though it is clear that your meds aren’t working and you are persistently and inexplicably rude and hostile. I am rewarded with your outburst above.

Yeah, Megan, take a hike.

367. Megan - October 2, 2009

As you wish. Bye.

368. daveintexas - October 2, 2009

Golly, I sure didn’t see that coming.

369. scottw - October 2, 2009

I never had a chance to ask her how many cats she owns.

370. Russ from Winterset - October 2, 2009

Comment #350:

I try to tell you people. But nooooooooooooo. Nobody ever listens to poor ol’ Russ

371. Megan - October 2, 2009

Ever hear the words “poor sport?”

372. Dave in Texas - October 2, 2009

Ever hear the words “50 millgrams, three times a day”?

What kind of sport exactly are we being poor about, the one where you scream “fuck you” at everybody and tell me how smart you are again, that kind of sport?

Hahahahaha. That kills me, every time. It’s almost as good as the drunken rants.

Almost.

Seriously. Welcome, worn out. Bye.

373. Andy Kaufmann - October 2, 2009

You morons wouldn’t recognize true genius if it were staring you in the face.

Oh, and FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCKITY FUCK

374. BrewFan - October 2, 2009

Architectural pattern are software patterns that offer well-established solutions to architectural problems in software engineering. It gives description of the elements and relation type together with a set of constraints on how they may be used. An architectural pattern expresses a fundamental structural organization schema for a software system, which consists of subsystems, their responsibilities and interrelations. In comparison to design patterns, architectural patterns are larger in scale.

Even though an architectural pattern conveys an image of a system, it is not an architecture as such. An architectural pattern is rather a concept that captures essential elements of a software architecture. Countless different architectures may implement the same pattern and thereby share the same characteristics. Furthermore, patterns are often defined as something “strictly described and commonly available”.[citation needed] For example, layered architecture is a call-and-return style, when it defines an overall style to interact. When it is strictly described and commonly available, it is a pattern.

One of the most important aspects of architectural patterns is that they embody different quality attributes. For example, some patterns represent solutions to performance problems and others can be used successfully in high-availability systems. In the early design phase, a software architect makes a choice of which architectural pattern(s) best provide the system’s desired qualities.

*stabs this thread in the heart*

h/t Cranky

375. The Thread - October 2, 2009

I’m not dead yet!

……

…….

I think I’ll go for a walk!

…….

…….

I feel much better!

376. daveintexas - October 2, 2009

Cranky would have killed it with a journal entry in a GL sub account.

Probably expenses. Something really picky, like “laundry while traveling”.

377. scottw - October 2, 2009

“As you wish. Bye.”

Jekyll should keep Hyde up to date, check the fridge there might be a note.

378. Michael - October 2, 2009

Architectural pattern are software patterns that offer well-established solutions to architectural problems in software engineering.

Very interesting, Brew. But isn’t a standard software architectural solution (or constraint) inconsistent with the industry-wide movement towards a more flexible and open service oriented architecture? And how does such a system keep up with the ever-changing and expanding pool of open source tools that constitute an increasing percentage of the code base in most products?

Please, tell me more.

379. harrison - October 2, 2009

Zzzzzz……

380. Michael - October 2, 2009

*taps foot impatiently*

I’m on the edge of my chair here, Brew.

381. harrison - October 2, 2009

Michael, I think he’s over at the Powerline post waiting for someone to comment.

382. Dex - October 2, 2009

Carl Sagan’s accent – Connecticut, right?

383. doc - October 3, 2009

tut tut, we are not amused. harumph

384. BrewFan - October 3, 2009

But isn’t a standard software architectural solution (or constraint) inconsistent with the industry-wide movement towards a more flexible and open service oriented architecture?

No.

And how does such a system keep up with the ever-changing and expanding pool of open source tools that constitute an increasing percentage of the code base in most products?

Only certain pieces of the prototypical corporate software system ever have to change. The User Experience portion is the obvious exceptions. The most important aspect of a good line-of-business application is its ability to be easily extended/scaled out, not changed per se. The other very important property of a good corporate application is its maintainability. It should be easily understood by future developers and this is where the use of well known software design patterns is critical. The use of open source software makes no difference what so ever. In fact, companies who place their mission critical systems on computers that run software that everybody in the whole world has the source code to is somewhat risky in my not so humble opinion.

385. The Thread - October 3, 2009

………………”Rosebud”

*falls over dead*

386. Moe Lane » Carl Sagan and apple pie. - October 3, 2009

[...] video, via Innocent Bystanders. Carl Sagan sings! Sort [...]

387. Michael - October 3, 2009

*nods in agreement, strokes chin*

You make some interesting points, Brewfan. I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

*Michael googles the buzzwords in his questions to find out what they mean.*

388. TGSG - October 17, 2009

387 comments is NOT “billions and billions”

>setting the record straight<


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 204 other followers

%d bloggers like this: